Hi, I am currently testing this patch on a large machine and will share the test results in few days of time.
Please excuse any grammatical errors as I am using my mobile device. Thanks. On Feb 11, 2017 04:59, "Tomas Vondra" <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Hi, > > As discussed at the Developer meeting ~ a week ago, I've ran a number of > benchmarks on the commit, on a small/medium-size x86 machines. I currently > don't have access to a machine as big as used by Alexander (with 72 > physical cores), but it seems useful to verify the patch does not have > negative impact on smaller machines. > > In particular I've ran these tests: > > * r/o pgbench > * r/w pgbench > * 90% reads, 10% writes > * pgbench with skewed distribution > * pgbench with skewed distribution and skipping > > And each of that with a number of clients, depending on the number of > cores available. I've used the usual two boxes I use for all benchmarks, > i.e. a small i5-2500k machine (8GB RAM, 4 cores), and a medium e5-2620v4 > box (32GB RAM, 16/32 cores). > > Comparing averages of tps, measured on 5 runs (each 5 minutes long), the > difference between master and patched master is usually within 2%, which is > pretty much within noise. > > I'm attaching spreadsheets with summary of the results, so that we have it > in the archives. As usual, the scripts and much more detailed results are > available here: > > * e5-2620: https://bitbucket.org/tvondra/test-xact-alignment > * i5-2500k: https://bitbucket.org/tvondra/test-xact-alignment-i5 > > I do plan to run these results on the Power8 box I have access to, but > that will have to wait for a bit, because it's currently doing something > else. > > regards > > -- > Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > >
